girlgeniusfandomcom-20200214-history
User talk:Graybeard/Sandbox
Please talk to me about my mad inventions here. -- that old bearded guy 02:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC) I really feel a lot of this is already covered in the articles themselves, some of it right on the main page. (A link to 'gaslamp fantasy' explaining why this term is used and what it means would be good.) On the other hand, the questions in the FAQ (not started by me, incidentally) really do get asked to the point of annoyance. :) --mnenyver 13:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC) :Right, the articles do cover much FAQ-able ground, but the reason for putting the questions in the FAQ is to make it easy for people to find them. The FAQ article can and should then refer to the main wiki article that develops an answer at length. Example: :*''Q. Why does this Agatha person use both the name Agatha Clay and Agatha Heterodyne?'' :*''A. Because she was incognito for much of her youth until she was revealed as a member of House Heterodyne. See Clay Mechanical for an explanation of where the Clay alias came from.'' :See, the point is to form a tightly defined, frequently asked question; give it a short answer; and aim the reader in the direction of further information from a source that may not be obvious. Most people would start addressing this Q via the Agatha Heterodyne article and have to wade through a whole bunch of stuff before getting the answer. A carefully-crafted FAQ and response should help the reader get answers easily and succinctly, without having to do that. -- GB/128.165.144.60 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC) :: So long as the current faq is still immediately visible and uncomplicated, something that we can point users to, I don't see a problem with adding something to that. Maybe two faqs would be better, one geared for new readers? --mnenyver 17:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC) :: Incidentally, the FAQs I created were really FAQs I've experienced reading the Yahoo! Groups list. And now, there's a thread of "Best One-Liners for GG T-shirts" on the same list that I'd like to collect in one place (but I'm not sure where on the wiki they should go...) Oh... that's a good poll idea, don't you think ("Which of the following is your favorite one-liner?")? In any case, it seems to me that a good policy on FAQs be that they arise organically rather than be designed... FAQs from the GG wiki forums, e.g. — Zarchne 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC) :::You put it better than I did. :) My philosophy toward FAQs is the same -- it should be answers to frequently asked questions and nothing but. Otherwise it's "Anticipated Questions" or "Basic Stuff for New Readers". I suppose my only concern was that adding stuff that nobody has yet asked will dilute the usefulness of the document. If the answers to what people are looking for aren't immediately visible, they're likely to miss them. omg tldr. Things like Agatha Clay --> Agatha Heterodyne... well, read the dang comic! :P Besides, readers of GG don't seem to have missed stuff like that. (As usual, please read this with the usual cheerful neutrality.) --mnenyver 00:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::::Ohgawd, but some of the stuff that comes up in the Y!group, you'd think nobody bothered to read more than the last 10 pages sometimes. The 'OMG, Othar has eyes!!1!' flap really got to me, ferinstance.... /CURmudgeon :::: Corgi 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC) :::::But oh... what eyes! Hee. *fans self* --mnenyver 13:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::::Well, I really disagree. To see what FAQs look like on a wiki that has been dealing with FAQ needs for a long time, check out the Wikipedia FAQ compilation. The FAQs there are extremely basic stuff, and correctly so: they are aimed at the neophyte user, and there are a lot more neophytes out there than experienced Wikipedians. So also here (which is not to say we need to do things the way Wikipedia does...); the goal of FAQs should be to help the newcomers feel their way around. By the time someone is aware enough even to notice Othar's eye shade, they're way beyond the newcomer stage. ::::Maybe something like "Girl Genius FAQs: Girl Genius 101" and "Girl Genius FAQs: Advanced Class," paralleling the way Girl Genius itself is structured, is the way to go. I don't have strong feelings about what should go into the Advanced Class FAQs, although I am concerned that some of the entries may get answers that are more speculative than factual, which is not the way an FAQs article should work. But the basic FAQs should really be about basics. It's not the seasoned veterans that need to be reached by those FAQs, and the cultural expectations for "basic" FAQs should be serviced. (Incidentally, the one-liner poll strikes me as a really excellent idea.) -- that old bearded guy 14:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC) :::::It really doesn't matter what's been done on other wikis. A wiki should serve its intended readers, and articles should be built from that. It does no one any good to go about it backwards and assume what people aren't going to understand (which, frankly, can come off as a little patronizing if done wrong -- not that that's necessarily the case here). I have no problem with a beginner's faq, though, if one is really needed. Just defending why the current FAQ is the way it is -- questions were being asked, answers were put up. C'est tout. :) --mnenyver 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC) One thing that comes up and comes up and comes up (on Yahoo) is Zeetha's headband. I'm annoyed by the repetition. So I'd suggest adding that. -Evaneyreddeman 02:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Mad: Do we need a template or should we just include a link at the bottom of articles? Keep in mind that, in theory, every article will have a corresponding Mad: page. --mnenyver 14:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC) :The template, with a Category:Has-Mad inclusion that I didn't build in yet, strikes me as the simplest. Call this one Template:Has-Mad and make a matching Template:Mad for the mad add-ons, with a corresponding category, and the whole thing is then completely simple to use. -- that old bearded guy 14:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC) ::Ohhhhh.... Hyu iz a pretty schmott guy! --mnenyver 15:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Interesting that the PAGENAME template you used doesn't include the namespace (or, at least it didn't produce "User:"), which is wrong for this purpose but is an interesting property if you're maintaining a group of pages synchronized between namespaces. (Also, does anyone know what happened to the skins in the last hour? They reset then returned... I should say after I noticed the problem I messed with the admin interface to the skin, but I don't think that's what fixed it... Who is IRC/Alphabetsoup?) — Zarchne 16:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC) :I noticed that too and have no explanation. It doesn't particularly matter for the intended application, since the pages where this particular template will be used are part of the main namespace. If we decide to go this route, though, let's watch the template for unexpected developments. -- that old bearded guy 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)